Hansen, NASA: Warming hasn't declined

[Saggy]

I tried to get to the direct link but all I could find was a summary in PDF form..and my computer hates PDF documents for some reason. So I linked to where I originally saw it on Accuweather and Brett Anderson..

http://www.accuweath...mperature-c.asp

I feel like I am in a tennis match. Just curious what people with infinitely more knowledge than I think about this.

[FallsLake]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/20/the-weather-outside-is-frightful-almost-everywhere/?hpt=T2

Large amounts of people across the globe don't think so....

[BethesdaWX]

Its hansen and his GISS again... Might as well throw this thread out before things turn ugly for AGW believers.

[nzucker]

Its hansen and his GISS again... Might as well throw this thread out before things turn ugly for AGW believers.

It's amazing how GISS shows such extreme anomalies lately compared to the other sources. It's as if Hansen just took a dark red pencil and filled every sparsely populated area in with it

Maybe Hansen should make a trip to the UK or France if he wants to chart how extreme the "warming" is...if the airport's even open.

[ORH_wxman]

Hansen is the most biased "climate scientist" in the business. Its sad he has such authority to augment the GISS readings.

[skierinvermont]

Contrary to the above mis-informed posts, there is actually a reasonable argument to be made that we have continued to warm quickly. What has developed is a divergence between the satellite temperature readings and the surface readings.

The surface readings HadCRUT and GISS (the one in the link you posted) are in relatively good agreement for the areas they both cover over the last decade. HadCRUT, however, does not include the arctic, where there is strong evidence it has warmed rapidly over the last 10-15 years. Thus HadCRUT, is likely too cool, and a more accurate representation of surface temperatures would be GISS or something slightly below GISS. GISS does run a little warmer for the areas they both cover, but most of the difference is attributable to the coverage of the arctic, where it is warming rapidly.

The satellites, on the other hand, have showed little warming over the last 10-12 years. Also of interest is that the two satellite sources (UAH and RSS) disagree with each other significantly (perhaps this is evidence that they are unreliable?).

So there is disagreement, and it is not entirely clear which source is correct. Or perhaps they are all correct and the surface has simply warmed faster than the lower troposphere (which is where the satellites are measuring).

[ORH_wxman]

I talked to a big pro AGWer tonight at length over several beers tonight....some of you may know who he is...but he is as disgusted as many of us "deniers" are about the politics involved...he said 90% of the emails he gets are "pro AGW climate change emails" and nothing else...they have nothing to with what he is trying to study. The blackballing in this "business" has become absolutely horrible.

This has nothing to with who is right and who is wrong, its about the ethics of science. The money is all in "climate science"..he said all of the openings are about climate change....and not actual weather. The politics have taken it too far.

[nzucker]

Contrary to the above mis-informed posts, there is actually a reasonable argument to be made that we have continued to warm quickly. What has developed is a divergence between the satellite temperature readings and the surface readings.

The surface readings HadCRUT and GISS (the one in the link you posted) are in relatively good agreement for the areas they both cover over the last decade. HadCRUT, however, does not include the arctic, where there is strong evidence it has warmed rapidly over the last 10-15 years. Thus HadCRUT, is likely too cool, and a more accurate representation of surface temperatures would be GISS or something slightly below GISS.

The satellites, on the other hand, have showed little warming over the last 10-12 years. Also of interest is that the two satellite sources (UAH and RSS) disagree with each other significantly (perhaps this is evidence that they are unreliable?).

So there is disagreement, and it is not entirely clear which source is correct. Or perhaps they are all correct and the surface has simply warmed faster than the lower troposphere (which is where the satellites are measuring).

If the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere, this is a fundamental strike against global warming theory because it was supposed to be the other way around. Therefore, much of the theory may need to be reformulated if we don't understand all aspects of what is supposed to be warming in what time frame.

Additionally, GISS has filled in warm anomalies in the arctic in several instances where it is unsupported by satellites. UAH and RSS still show we are not warming that much even though they are designed to measure most of the Arctic as well as GISS does, or even better since it is an actual measurement instead of an extrapolation based on a few poorly-sited coastal stations which have been exposed as junk by Watts...by necessity, stations need to be located in towns/airstrips, and these places are always going to be warmer than the majority of the arctic which is 99% rural...even if no bias is intended. Although UAH and RSS have shown the arctic to be well warmer than average in the past few years, it still hasn't influenced the global readings that much because the arctic is relatively unimportant...it's all about the oceans and the mid-latitudes where most of the land is contained.

And Hadley, while slightly warmer than the satellites, is still showing we haven't warmed nearly as much as the IPCC predictions for unrestrained/accelerating emissions. In all likelihood, Hadley will show this as the second warmest year on record, well behind 1998, not impressive considering how much time we've had since the last strong El Niño in which global warming was supposed to be "accelerating."

Finally, it doesn't seem global warming is affecting people's lives as much as the unusual cold/snowy winters we've seen in Europe and North America the past three seasons due to natural blocking patterns. Over 100 people already dead in Poland this winter due to extreme cold, Heathrow and Gatwick closed for multiple days due to heavy snow, truck traffic suspended for days on French highways, extremely high heating costs in the eastern US due to prolonged cold, etc. And we'll probably be seeing a lot more of it with the solar factor decreasing global temperatures AND causing the pattern to favor heavily -AO/-NAO.

[BethesdaWX]

Contrary to the above mis-informed posts, there is actually a reasonable argument to be made that we have continued to warm quickly. What has developed is a divergence between the satellite temperature readings and the surface readings.

The surface readings HadCRUT and GISS (the one in the link you posted) are in relatively good agreement for the areas they both cover over the last decade. HadCRUT, however, does not include the arctic, where there is strong evidence it has warmed rapidly over the last 10-15 years. Thus HadCRUT, is likely too cool, and a more accurate representation of surface temperatures would be GISS or something slightly below GISS. GISS does run a little warmer for the areas they both cover, but most of the difference is attributable to the coverage of the arctic, where it is warming rapidly.

The satellites, on the other hand, have showed little warming over the last 10-12 years. Also of interest is that the two satellite sources (UAH and RSS) disagree with each other significantly (perhaps this is evidence that they are unreliable?).

So there is disagreement, and it is not entirely clear which source is correct. Or perhaps they are all correct and the surface has simply warmed faster than the lower troposphere (which is where the satellites are measuring).

if the surface is warming faster, it tears apart how AGW is supposed to work......as I'm sure you know

[BethesdaWX]

I talked to a big pro AGWer tonight at length over several beers tonight....some of you may know who he is...but he is as disgusted as many of us "deniers" are about the politics involved...he said 90% of the emails he gets are "pro AGW climate change emails" and nothing else...they have nothing to with what he is trying to study. The blackballing in this "business" has become absolutely horrible.

This has nothing to with who is right and who is wrong, its about the ethics of science. The money is all in "climate science"..he said all of the openings are about climate change....and not actual weather. The politics have taken it too far.

Heck Yes. Gov't needs to either learn, or GTFO of the debate.

[nzucker]

if the surface is warming faster, it tears apart how AGW is supposed to work......as I'm sure you know

But, but, but...it's never going to snow again in Britain. Children will not know winter's magic, Bethesda. How can you not believe that?

And it's the guys running our temperature datasets saying these things. Laughable.

[ORH_wxman]

Heck Yes. Gov't needs to either learn, or GTFO of the debate.

Politics has over taken the funding...and he is a big AGWer. Its hurting his own field...he says all the funding is climate science and it doesn't matter what he studies.

[BethesdaWX]

Politics has over taken the funding...and he is a big AGWer. Its hurting his own field...he says all the funding is climate science and it doesn't matter what he studies.

I bet the gov't takeover is the underlying source in the bias & short attention span in the IPCC minds. Its like they TRY to make sure that Nautral cycles are kicked out of the debate........solar has been criminally discriminated.

[skierinvermont]

If the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere, this is a fundamental strike against global warming theory because it was supposed to be the other way around. Therefore, much of the theory may need to be reformulated if we don't understand all aspects of what is supposed to be warming in what time frame.

Additionally, GISS has filled in warm anomalies in the arctic in several instances where it is unsupported by satellites. UAH and RSS still show we are not warming that much even though they are designed to measure most of the Arctic as well as GISS does, or even better since it is an actual measurement instead of an extrapolation based on a few poorly-sited coastal stations which have been exposed as junk by Watts...by necessity, stations need to be located in towns/airstrips, and these places are always going to be warmer than the majority of the arctic which is 99% rural...even if no bias is intended. Although UAH and RSS have shown the arctic to be well warmer than average in the past few years, it still hasn't influenced the global readings that much because the arctic is relatively unimportant...it's all about the oceans and the mid-latitudes where most of the land is contained.

And Hadley, while slightly warmer than the satellites, is still showing we haven't warmed nearly as much as the IPCC predictions for unrestrained/accelerating emissions. In all likelihood, Hadley will show this as the second warmest year on record, well behind 1998, not impressive considering how much time we've had since the last strong El Niño in which global warming was supposed to be "accelerating."

Finally, it doesn't seem global warming is affecting people's lives as much as the unusual cold/snowy winters we've seen in Europe and North America the past three seasons due to natural blocking patterns. Over 100 people already dead in Poland this winter due to extreme cold, Heathrow and Gatwick closed for multiple days due to heavy snow, truck traffic suspended for days on French highways, extremely high heating costs in the eastern US due to prolonged cold, etc. And we'll probably be seeing a lot more of it with the solar factor decreasing global temperatures AND causing the pattern to favor heavily -AO/-NAO.

1) It is only the last 10 years where the surface has warmed MUCH faster than the lower troposphere, and you would expect more variation on short time periods. If you use the full 30 years, then the vertical warming profile of the atmospheres is fairly consistent with the models IF you use RSS (NOT UAH). The fact that there is such stark disagreement between RSS and UAH shows they are not that reliable however.

2) GISS has also filled in cold anomalies in the arctic when it shouldn't have. If you take a high latitude band from UAH it actually corroborates GISS over the last 10 years in terms of overall trend. The difference between UAH and GISS is attributable mostly to the lower latitudes.. since they both agree on the extremely rapid warming of the arctic. You continue to harp on the extrapolations of the arctic, when these extrapolations are easily corroborated and your harping shown to be completely unsubstantiated. You also are harping on UHI.. apparently you haven't read anything about how they adjust for UHI or have shown it to have no effect after the adjustments.

[BethesdaWX]

But, but, but...it's never going to snow again in Britain. Children will not know winter's magic, Bethesda. How can you not believe that?

And it's the guys running our temperature datasets saying these things. Laughable.

lolz

Wait......Didn't the All-Mighty GOD Hansen say "NYC will be under 20ft of water by 2008"? We're melting, MELTING!

He's the one who started the whole AGW theory..........and It looks like he will cause its demise too

[ORH_wxman]

1) It is only the last 10 years where the surface has warmed MUCH faster than the lower troposphere, and you would expect more variation on short time periods. If you use the full 30 years, then the vertical warming profile of the atmospheres is fairly consistent with the models IF you use RSS (NOT UAH). The fact that there is such stark disagreement between RSS and UAH shows they are not that reliable however.

2) GISS has also filled in cold anomalies in the arctic when it shouldn't have. If you take a high latitude band from UAH it actually corroborates GISS over the last 10 years in terms of overall trend. The difference between UAH and GISS is attributable mostly to the lower latitudes.. since they both agree on the extremely rapid warming of the arctic. You continue to harp on the extrapolations of the arctic, when these extrapolations are easily corroborated and your harping shown to be completely unsubstantiated. You also are harping on UHI.. apparently you haven't read anything about how they adjust for UHI or have shown it to have no effect after the adjustments.

Here is the difference between arctic GISS and UAH...biases are both noted in previous convo...only through end of 2009...and again this is ONLY the arctic...not the antarctic, which nobody wants to talk about where UAH shows a decline in temps.

[BethesdaWX]

Hey Skier, I'm still waiting for your "analysis" on the GISS vs UAH in the antarctic that we all went over a little while ago

[BethesdaWX]

Here is the difference between arctic GISS and UAH...biases are both noted in previous convo...only through end of 2009...and again this is ONLY the arctic...not the antarctic, which nobody wants to talk about where UAH shows a decline in temps.

wow thats horrible. 1.2C in the La Nina of 2007-08 is not surprising.

[skierinvermont]

Here is the difference between arctic GISS and UAH...biases are both noted in previous convo...only through end of 2009...and again this is ONLY the arctic...not the antarctic, which nobody wants to talk about where UAH shows a decline in temps.

Well first of all that graph basically confirms GISS using UAH since they both show around 1C of warming.. the difference is relatively small relative to the overall trend. It would indicate that GISS has warmed about 1.1C while UAH has warmed .9C in the arctic.. meanwhile HadCRUT has warmed 0C in the arctic because it doesn't include it at all.

Second of all, that's not exactly what I get when I compare the two. I get UAH warming slightly faster in the arctic but I might be doing it wrong. Either way though, it confirms GISS's rapid warming in the arctic and shows that HadCRUT is biased cold for not including it.

[skierinvermont]

wow thats horrible. 1.2C in the La Nina of 2007-08 is not surprising.

You are forgetting the different base periods. The absolute values are not important, it is the slope of that line which is important.

[nzucker]

You are forgetting the different base periods. The absolute values are not important, it is the slope of that line which is important.

That is a graph of the difference between UAH and GISS, not the temperature change. The line does not have a slope.

[nzucker]

lolz

Wait......Didn't the All-Mighty GOD Hansen say "NYC will be under 20ft of water by 2008"? We're melting, MELTING!

He's the one who started the whole AGW theory..........and It looks like he will cause its demise too

The problem with the AGW theory lies in its extremity. I would have no issue with scientists saying, "Hey we've seen some warming since 1850 partly due to humans, we're expecting a bit more in the next century, we should be careful about emissions and try to reduce pollution when we can." But the extreme predictions are why the public is losing interest..."all the polar bears are dying" when the population is at record numbers, "British children will never see snow again" when they've just had record snowfalls and cold, "the Earth will warm 4C by 2060" when we've barely warmed since 1998, etc. These lies cause the environmental movement to lose credibility and allow skeptics to repeatedly mock the climate scientists when they inevitably bust. This will hurt the movement to have a cleaner earth in the long range. What we need is for the environmentalists to go back to a 1960s/1970s style approach of fixing local problems like inefficient insulation in older homes, polluted rivers like the Hudson, excessive littering and lack of bottle bills in certain states, lack of recycling availability and information in rural areas, etc. Then we'll get a head start on global warming anyway while people feel they are doing something concrete to protect their home. I, for one, am much more concerned about the amount of trash on the ground at our beautiful country home in the picturesque Pocono Mountains than what the climate will be like in 100 years.

[skierinvermont]

That is a graph of the difference between UAH and GISS, not the temperature change. The line does not have a slope.

All lines have a slope.

It is a graph of GISS minus UAH. Since GISS uses an earlier base period it is automatically a higher anomaly than UAH. Thus the term (GISS-UAH) would be EXPECTED to be positive. It is only if the difference becomes larger over time (IE the slope of the line is positive) that there is a problem. If the slope of the line is zero then UAH perfectly corroborates GISS.

Don't tell me there is no slope lol

[BethesdaWX]

You are forgetting the different base periods. The absolute values are not important, it is the slope of that line which is important.

That doesn't change the fact the deviation is ridiculous and false

[BethesdaWX]

All lines have a slope.

It is a graph of GISS minus UAH. Since GISS uses an earlier base period it is automatically a higher anomaly than UAH. Thus the term (GISS-UAH) would be EXPECTED to be positive. It is only if the difference becomes larger over time (IE the slope of the line is positive) that there is a problem. If the slope of the line is zero then UAH perfectly corroborates GISS.

Don't tell me there is no slope lol

dude...its a measurement of COMPARISON....not actual global anoms! You need sleep

[nzucker]

All lines have a slope.

It is a graph of GISS minus UAH. Since GISS uses an earlier base period it is automatically a higher anomaly than UAH. Thus the term (GISS-UAH) would be EXPECTED to be positive. It is only if the difference becomes larger over time (IE the slope of the line is positive) that there is a problem. If the slope of the line is zero then UAH perfectly corroborates GISS.

Don't tell me there is no slope

Dude you totally misread the graph, admit it. You said, "This confirms GISS since it shows approximately 1C of warming in the arctic." The graph doesn't say anything about arctic temperature anomalies, it's about how the sources have diverged.

I just mean that this isn't the type of graph where you have a consistent slope because there are always going to be fluctuations in the different sources that can't be assigned a trend. The whole point of a line's slope is to find a trend but it's difficult to do that here because they can vary so much based on external factors like the AO, extrapolations etc. Of course one can say the slope is getting more positive but then of course it declined some in 2009. Overall, the graph definitely shows an increasing divergence as we've seen with the last few sets of monthly numbers.

[BethesdaWX]

That is a graph of the difference between UAH and GISS, not the temperature change. The line does not have a slope.

Yes, exactly

[BethesdaWX]

The problem with the AGW theory lies in its extremity. I would have no issue with scientists saying, "Hey we've seen some warming since 1850 partly due to humans, we're expecting a bit more in the next century, we should be careful about emissions and try to reduce pollution when we can." But the extreme predictions are why the public is losing interest..."all the polar bears are dying" when the population is at record numbers, "British children will never see snow again" when they've just had record snowfalls and cold, "the Earth will warm 4C by 2060" when we've barely warmed since 1998, etc. These lies cause the environmental movement to lose credibility and allow skeptics to repeatedly mock the climate scientists when they inevitably bust. This will hurt the movement to have a cleaner earth in the long range. What we need is for the environmentalists to go back to a 1960s/1970s style approach of fixing local problems like inefficient insulation in older homes, polluted rivers like the Hudson, excessive littering and lack of bottle bills in certain states, lack of recycling availability and information in rural areas, etc. Then we'll get a head start on global warming anyway while people feel they are doing something concrete to protect their home. I, for one, am much more concerned about the amount of trash on the ground at our beautiful country home in the picturesque Pocono Mountains than what the climate will be like in 100 years.

I agree with this too. Theres no doubt that we've polluted the environment, and we've created heat in urban/suburban areas, which do have an impact. As for CO2 creating mass warming rising sea levels 20ft in 20yrs...no way.

WP values estimated by humans are 0.28%...... theres no way we warm more than 0.1C at most in this case.

[skierinvermont]

Dude you totally misread the graph, admit it. You said, "This confirms GISS since it shows approximately 1C of warming in the arctic." The graph doesn't say anything about arctic temperature anomalies, it's about how the sources have diverged.

I just mean that this isn't the type of graph where you have a consistent slope because there are always going to be fluctuations in the different sources that can't be assigned a trend. The whole point of a line's slope is to find a trend but it's difficult to do that here because they can vary so much based on external factors like the AO, extrapolations etc. Of course one can say the slope is getting more positive but then of course it declined some in 2009. Overall, the graph definitely shows an increasing divergence as we've seen with the last few sets of monthly numbers.

I didn't say THAT graph showed 1C of arctic warming. I know that from my previous experience looking at graphs of UAH and GISS temperature anomalies for the arctic. They both show about 1C of warming. The divergence of one or two tenths is meaningless compared to the overall trend. What's better GISS's 1.1C vs UAH's .9C or vs HadCRUT's 0C? Clearly UAH generally corroborates GISS's extrapolations. Moreover it is yet another example of selective endpoints since UAH warmed rapidly from 1993-1997 when ORH's graph begins.

And this is all despite the fact that UAH runs cooler than RSS, HadCRUT and GISS EVERYWHERE.

Btw generally when you put something in quotations it means that somebody actually said those words.. I never said what you quoted.

[nzucker]

No one disagrees that HadCRUT is probably too cool in the arctic regions. I don't think the argument's about that. Honestly I don't care what the argument's about, I just want to see the 6z GFS show a HECS.

But as the divergence graph shows, some years have had a massive difference like Winter 07-08. And the divergence has been increasing a lot (maybe as Hansen got desperate after the arrests) so it does seem a bit anomalous.